alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

______________________________

ALL ALI BIN ALI AHMED, :

et al., :

:

Petitioners, :

:

v. : Civil Action No. 05-1678 (GK) 

 :

BARACK H. OBAMA, et al., :

:

Respondents. :

______________________________:

ORDER

A Status Conference was held in this case on February 26,

2009, which was closed to the public due to discussion of

classified information. Upon consideration of the representations

of the parties, and the entire record herein, it is hereby

ORDERED, that the Government shall respond to Petitioner’s

Request for Admissions by March 9, 2009. If the Government is

unable to respond by that date, it shall file a Praecipe explaining

why and include a reliable estimation of when the Government will

be able to respond; and it is further

ORDERED, that March 10, 2009, is the final deadline for the

Government to produce exculpatory evidence -- including credibility

assessments -- related to the four individuals whose statements the

Government principally relies on to establish its case for

detention; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Government shall submit a Praecipe on March

10, 2009, estimating how long it will take to produce such evidence
-2-

for any remaining individuals that the Government relies on to

establish its case for detention.

 /s/ 

February 26, 2009 Gladys Kessler

United States District Judge

Copies to: Attorneys of Record via ECF
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

GUADALUPE VILLA-RODRIGUEZ, 

 CASE NO. 2:12-CV-261 

 Petitioner, CRIM. NO. 2:10-CR-225(4) 

 JUDGE MARBLEY 

 v. MAGISTRATE JUDGE KING 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Respondent. 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 On May 14, 2013, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court hold an evidentiary 

hearing on Petitioner’s claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his 

attorney failed to file an appeal after being requested to do so and failed to consult with 

Petitioner regarding the filing of an appeal. Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 185. The 

Magistrate Judge further recommended that the remainder of Petitioner’s claims be dismissed. 

Id. Petitioner has filed objections to that recommendation. Objection, Doc. No. 189. 

 Petitioner specifically, objects to the recommendation that certain claims be dismissed. 

He contends that the Court should conduct an evidentiary hearing on all his claims. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court has conducted a de novo review. For the 

reasons detailed in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, Petitioner’s Objection,

Doc. No. 189, is OVERRULED. The Report and Recommendation Doc. No. 185, is 

ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. Counsel shall be appointed to represent Petitioner at an 

evidentiary hearing before the Magistrate Judge on Petitioner’s claim that he was denied the 

effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to file an appeal after being requested 

Case: 2:12-cv-00261-ALM-NMK Doc #: 3 Filed: 06/19/13 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 

to do so and failed to consult with Petitioner regarding the filing of an appeal. The remainder of 

Petitioner’s claims are hereby DISMISSED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 19, 2013 s/Algenon L. Marbley 

 ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

 United States District Judge 

Case: 2:12-cv-00261-ALM-NMK Doc #: 3 Filed: 06/19/13 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

June 7, 2024

SC-2023-0911

Ex parte Costillo Arteen Johnson (In re: Costillo Arteen Johnson v. 

Alabama Department of Corrections) (Montgomery Circuit Court: CV-23-

195).

ORDER

This Court has elected to treat the appeal filed by Costillo Arteen 

Johnson as a petition for the writ of mandamus. The petition for writ of 

mandamus in this cause is denied.

MITCHELL, J. -- Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Bryan, and Mendheim, 

JJ., concur.

Witness my hand on June 7, 2024.

Clerk of Court,

Supreme Court of Alabama
Q500	Owner	Maintenance	Procedures

All	maintenance	will	be	performed	in	accordance	with	the	manufacturers	

requirements,	safe-operating practices	and	per	the	operator’s	maintenance	

procedures	as	described	herein.		The	Aircraft	log	sheet	will	be	closed	and	a	new	log	

sheet	created	after	7	days	ending	at	2400	hours	on	Sunday	on	a	weekly	basis.

Pre-flight	inspection	per	the	operator’s	checklist	required before	each	flight.		The	

operator	requires	an	inspection	signoff;	once	daily	on	the	day	that	the	aircraft	is	

intended	to	be	flown prior	to	flight.

Discrepancies	and	deficiencies	will	be	noted	in	the	aircraft	logbook	to	include	an	

Item	number,	Date	and	time,	Discrepancy,	Persons	name	and	Certificate	number.

The	aircraft	will	not	be	flown	until	the	Discrepancy	is	corrected	and	signed	off	by	

the	operator	or	authorized	repair	person,	listing	the	Item	number,	Date	and	Time,	

the	corrective	action	taken	and	the	person’s signature	performing	the	corrective	

action.

All	airframe,	ground	station	and	component	items	are	per	the	manufacturer,	oncondition	and	time	limits	will	be	set	as	the	needed.			

As	preventative	maintenance	the	operator	elects	to	time	limit	propeller	O-rings	to	a	

maximum	of	4	calendar	weeks	of	installation.		O-rings	will	be	removed	and	replaced	

at	that	time	interval	or	upon	condition with	an	equivalent	or	higher	quality	O-ring	

than	that	supplied	by	the	manufacturer.		All	four	O-rings	will	be	replaced	anytime	a	

replacement	is	performed.		An	appropriate	entry	will	be	made	noting	the	flight time	

since	last	change	and	the	installation	date	and	time.

Weekly,	beginning	at	the	start	of	a	new	week	the	propeller	shaft	threads	will	have	a	

small	amount	of	anti-seize	applied	to	the	propeller	hub	threads	to	prevent	galling

and	propeller	seizure.	

Propellers	will	be	installed	by	turning	the	propeller	in	the	proper	direction	until	

contact	is	made	with	the	O-ring,	then	one	full	and	a	half	turn	will	be	made	to	

properly	seat	the	propellers	on	the	shaft.		This	is	per	the	manufacturers	

recommendation.	

This	maintenance	procedure	list	will	be	updated	and	amended	as	necessary.
Purpose of 

Grant Program

Eligible 

Applicants

Eligible 

Projects

To provide fnancial assistance to enttes implementng interstate rail compacts 

pursuant to secton 410 of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 

(49 U.S.C. 24101).

• An existng entty (e.g., a commission) established by member states to 

 implement an interstate rail compact.

• Costs of administraton 

• Systems planning, including studying the impacts of freight rail operatons 

and ridership

• Promoton of intercity passenger rail operaton

• Preparaton of applicatons for compettve Federal grant programs 

• Operatons coordinaton

* Eligible expenses must be related to intercity passenger rail service to be operated by Amtrak.

Interstate Rail Compacts Grant Program

FRA supports the naton’s rail network through a variety of compettve 

and dedicated grant programs designed to encourage the expansion and 

upgrade of passenger rail infrastructure and services. 

The informaton below highlights the new Interstate Rail Compacts Grant 

Program, enacted through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. 

Interstate Rail Compacts may be used to support and facilitate mult-state 

and regional intercity passenger rail services. 

Interstate Rail Compacts Grant Program Fact Sheet

FOR THE MOST UP-TO-DATE INFORMATION, VISIT FRA’S WEBSITE: htps://railroads.dot.gov/BIL
```

[104th Congress Public Law 216]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ216.104]

[[Page 110 STAT. 3019]]

Public Law 104-216
104th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to authorize appropriations 
for the Federal Trade Commission. <<NOTE: Oct. 1, 1996 -  [H.R. 3553]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Federal Trade 
Commission Reauthorization Act of 1996.>> 

SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 15 USC 58 note.>>  SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Trade Commission 
Reauthorization Act of 1996''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION.

    Section 25 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57c) is 
amended by striking ``and not to exceed'' and inserting ``not to 
exceed'' and by inserting before the period the following: ``; not to 
exceed $107,000,000 for fiscal year 1997; and not to exceed $111,000,000 
for fiscal year 1998''.

    Approved October 1, 1996.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3553 (S. 1840):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 104-754 (Comm. on Commerce).
SENATE REPORTS: No. 104-342 accompanying S. 1840 (Comm. on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 142 (1996):
            Sept. 4, considered and passed House.
            Sept. 13, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of TSR, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John G. Sharkey, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.

The foregoing certification is incorporated solely for the purposes of complying
with the provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and is not intended
to be used for any other purpose.

/s/  John G. Sharkey
     ----------------------------------------------------
     Vice President-Finance
     and Chief Financial Officer

     October 9, 2009
AMENDMENT OF SALES AGREEMENT


EXHIBIT 10.13




AMENDMENT OF SALES AGREEMENT







The undersigned hereby amend the Sales Agreement entered into by and between Xenacare Holdings, Inc. and Pure Laboratories, LLC on April 11, 2008, as follows:

1.2

Purchase Price.  The aggregate purchase price for the Assets is the amount of Five Percent (5%) of the Gross Sales Price (defined herein as the wholesale sales price of each product less all charge backs, bad debt, returns, allowances, and free goods) bearing any of the trademarks set forth in Paragraph 1.1 hereinabove or related to or competitive, defined as any sun care or defense formula in a pill, capsule or other internal format with any of the Assets set forth in Paragraph 1.1 hereinabove (the “Consideration) to be paid to the Company by the Purchaser on a quarter annum basis (said period to commence immediately upon complete execution of this Sales Agreement), but shall be capped to a maximum of $2,500,000.00.  The Purchaser agrees that the Company shall have the right to terminate this agreement in the event the Purchaser fails to pay the Company a minimum of seventy-five ($75,000) thousand in any calendar year beginning in 2009 until the capped amount is met.  In addition, the Company shall receive 500,000 shares of common stock of the Purchaser (to be delivered to the Company within thirty (30) days of the date of this agreement), which shares shall be in the same form and bear the same restrictions including stock restrictions, stock dilution and stock splits as the current principal shareholders of the Company.  The Purchaser agrees that it will use its reasonable best efforts within two (2) years from the date of this amendment include those shares in any registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

This amendment is contingent upon the merger between the Purchaser and Sun Packing, Inc. within 60 days.  Should the merger not consummate, then this amendment will become null and void.

The above represents the full and complete understanding of the Amendment and is accepted by the Parties as of the date designated below.

Pure Laboratories, LLC (the “Company”)




By:

/s/   B. Hechtman

Date:

8/5/2008

B. Hechtman, President










Xenacare Holdings, Inc. (the “Purchaser”)







By:

/s/   Frank Rizzo

Date:

7/30/2008

Frank Rizzo, President
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-60324

Conference Calendar

__________________

JIMMY DALE TAYLOR,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CHRISTINE HOUSTON,

 Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:94-CV-260-S-A

- - - - - - - - - -

August 21, 1996

Before KING, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jimmy Dale Taylor, Mississippi inmate #53474, appeals the

dismissal as frivolous of his civil rights complaint. He argues

that the district court incorrectly relied upon Heck v. Humphrey,

114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994) in determining that his complaint

has no arguable basis in law. A review of Taylor’s complaint and

his appellate argument indicates that the Heck rule is not an

impediment to Taylor’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cause of action. That
No. 96-60324

-2-

is, if Taylor were successful in this suit, the judgment would

not mandate a change in the fact or duration of his confinement.

He would only be considered eligible for parole. Cf. McGrew v.

Texas Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 47 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 1995)

(applying the Heck rule to complaint challenging parole board’s

purported extension of a sentence and revocation of mandatory

supervision). 

Because a Mississippi inmate does not have a

constitutionally protected interest in parole eligibility under

Miss. Code Ann. § 47-7-3 (Supp. 1995), we affirm on this

alternate ground. See Scales v. Mississippi State Parole Bd.,

831 F.2d 565, 566 (5th Cir. 1987); see also Sandin v. Conner, 115

S. Ct. 2293, 2294 (1995).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION OF 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Texas Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended February 28, 2009 (the Report), I, Kenneth R. Allen, Vice President-Finance and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:

(1)       The Report fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)       The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



| |  |                       |  |  |  |  |  |                                                      |  | 
| |  | --------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------- |  | 
| |  |                       |  |  |  | 
| |  |                       |  |  | 
| |  | Dated: March 27, 2009 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Kenneth R. Allen                                 |  | 
| |  |                       |  |  |  |  |  | Kenneth R. Allen                                     |  | 
| |  |                       |  |  |  |  |  | Vice President - Finance and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Texas Industries, Inc. and will be retained by Texas Industries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 48043.

#### Protests 19236-K, etc., of Aron Novelty Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following *United States*v. *Armand Schwab & Co.*(30 C. C. P. A. 72, C. A. D. 218), the protests were sustained, in accordance with stipulation of counsel.
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 298 

Designating Thursday, November 17, 2005, as ‘‘Feed America Thursday’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 3, 2005 

Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. BENNETT) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Designating Thursday, November 17, 2005, as ‘‘Feed 

America Thursday’’. 

Whereas Thanksgiving Day celebrates the spirit of selfless 

giving and an appreciation for family and friends; 

Whereas the spirit of Thanksgiving Day is a virtue upon 

which our Nation was founded; 

Whereas 33,000,000 Americans, including 13,000,000 children, continue to live in households that do not have an 

adequate supply of food; 

Whereas almost 3,000,000 of those children experience hunger; and 

Whereas selfless sacrifice breeds a genuine spirit of Thanksgiving, both affirming and restoring fundamental principles in our society: Now, therefore, be it 
2 

•SRES 298 IS

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates Thursday, November 17, 2005, 

3 as ‘‘Feed America Thursday’’; and 

4 (2) requests that the President issue a procla5 mation calling on the people of the United States to 

6 sacrifice 2 meals on Thursday, November 17, 2005, 

7 and to donate the money that they would have spent 

8 on food to a religious or charitable organization of 

9 their choice for the purpose of feeding the hungry. 

Æ
fzmd-ex1043_239.htm



 

Exhibit 10.43

 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PROMISSORY NOTE

This Amendment No. 1 to Promissory Note (this “Amendment”), dated as of March 25, 2022 (the “Effective Date”), by and between FUSE MEDICAL, INC., a Delaware corporation (“Borrower”), and REEG MEDICAL INDUSTRIES, INC., a Texas corporation (“Lender”) amends the Promissory Note, dated May 6, 2020, issued by Borrow to Lender in principal sum of $20,000.00 (the “Promissory Note”).

RECITALS

A.Borrower and Lender desire to amend the Promissory Note on the terms set forth herein; and

B.Borrower has requested, and the Lender has agreed, to amend the Promissory Note to extend the Maturity Date to May 5, 2023.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises set forth above and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

1.Definitions.  Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment shall have the respective meanings given them in the Promissory Note.

2.Amendment to the Promissory Note.  The final sentence of the first paragraph of the Promissory Note is hereby amended by deleting the date “May 5, 2022” and substituting in lieu thereof the date “May 5, 2023”.

3.Limited Effect.  Except as expressly provided hereby, all of the terms and provisions of the Promissory Note are and shall remain in full force and effect and are hereby ratified and confirmed by the Borrower.  The amendment contained herein shall not be construed as a waiver or amendment of any other provision of the Promissory Note or for any purpose except as expressly set forth herein or a consent to any further or future action on the part of the Borrower that would require the waiver or consent of the Lender.

4.Effectiveness.  This Amendment shall become effective upon the Effective Date.

5.Governing Law.  This Amendment shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of Texas.

6.Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, all of which shall constitute one and the same agreement, and any party hereto may execute this Amendment by signing and delivering one or more counterparts. Delivery of an executed counterpart of this Amendment electronically or by facsimile shall be effective as delivery of an original executed counterpart of this Amendment.

 

27665979v1 80130.003.00



 

[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.

 



 

 

27665979v1 80130.003.00
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM TOREADOR
RESOURCES CORPORATION CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q
FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         253,438
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,518,811
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,134,724
<PP&E>                                      28,568,563
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,860,521
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              26,251,623
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,220,730
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    160,000
<COMMON>                                       883,058
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,227,835
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                26,251,623
<SALES>                                      4,778,381
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,044,930
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,913,745
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             664,914
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,466,271
<INCOME-TAX>                                   501,530
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            964,741
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   732,966
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-40882

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

AGUSTIN MALDONADO-GALLEGOS,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-98-CR-92-1

- - - - - - - - - -

April 15, 1999

Before JONES, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Agustin Maldonado-Gallegos has

filed a motion to withdraw and a brief as required by Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Although given notice,

Maldonado-Gallegos has filed no response to the motion to

dismiss. We have independently reviewed counsel’s brief and the

record and have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly,

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.